This post hit on something I've been mulling around for awhile. It seems that the logical conclusion to sola scriptura is unconditional election (i.e. Calvinism). But, I'm far from an expert in this area, so I would like to hear responses from people who belong to denominations that do not accept unconditional election but are also not Catholic. (Catholics and Calvinists feel free to jump in and correct errors, but I'm pretty sure I already understand your positions.) I'm not really looking for discussion, especially since those have been getting a little crazy lately; I want to know what your denomination has to say about this:

The argument as I understand it:
If scripture is God's only infallible revelation (sola scriptura), then it cannot be validated except by itself, which is circular, so it cannot be validated at all. If we were to validate it by any other means (history, logical cohesion, etc.), we would be introducing a mechanism other than scripture, which is not from God, and thus not reliable. So, the only way to be sure of scripture's validity is for the Holy Spirit to open one's eyes. Experience in life tells us that the Spirit does not do this for everyone, so the logical conclusion is unconditional election.

So, sola scriptura = unconditional election.

I understand the Catholic perspective on this (sacred tradition of which scripture is a part), but what about the Protestants who do accept sola but don't believe in unconditional election? The above argumentation seems air-tight to me, that is, if you accept its tenants, and if you don't accept the tenants, I don't see any way to accept sola. How do you folks see the issue?

And please, please, please try to stay on topic. I would really like to know what sola -believeing-but-no-unconditional-election denominations teach.

colton wrote:The argument as I understand it:
If scripture is God's only infallible revelation (sola scriptura), then it cannot be validated except by itself, which is circular, so it cannot be validated at all.

I hope I don't derail your thread, because you ask a great question here.

My two cents, though... I don't mind some circular evidence. If the Bible is indeed the ONLY inspired revelation of God, then I would expect the Bible to tell us this, the way the Q'ran asserts its primacy.

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

colton wrote:...we would be introducing a mechanism other than scripture, which is not from God, and thus not reliable.

I'm not sure about this particular item in what you said. Doesn't Sola scriptura mean that scripture is the final authority - not that all other authorities are not from God and not reliable? There are many trustworthy "mechanisms" - for example reason - but sola scriptura means one believes scripture has the highest/final authority - which I don't think is quite the same as what you described.

Praying - coco
Sometimes memes can be helpful as well as humorous - Jocose
Yer mom is kindhearted and well respected in her community - JMG
And when I am sitting on my new saddle, I will know that my weight is resting upon the collective minds of CPS - GaryinVa

colton wrote:...we would be introducing a mechanism other than scripture, which is not from God, and thus not reliable.

I'm not sure about this particular item in what you said. Doesn't Sola scriptura mean that scripture is the final authority - not that all other authorities are not from God and not reliable? There are many trustworthy "mechanisms" - for example reason - but sola scriptura means one believes scripture has the highest/final authority - which I don't think is quite the same as what you described.

Well, I'm not enough of a scholar to know exactly what theologians mean by sola scriptura, but it seems strange to validate the highest thing with something lower. It calls to mind God swearing by Himself because he had nothing greater to swear by. If scripture is the ultimate authority, what, except the Holy Spirit, can be produced us to show that it is true? If scripture sometimes contracts man's reason, how can man's reason validate it? If scripture can contradict anything because it is the only authority, how can anything comment on it?

To quote from Princess Bride: "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

The purpose of the sola scriptura principle during the Protestant Reformation was to base theology on scripture alone, as opposed to on church tradition or authority. For example, the Bereans in Acts 17:11 examined the scriptures daily to determine whether what St. Paul said was true. It wasn't enough for Paul to say, "This is what we're teaching in Jerusalem."

From my understanding, the sola scriptura principle does not attempt to validate scripture using scripture. Rather, it attempts to validate theology using scripture. For this to take place, it must be previously established that scripture is the authority for theology, and this establishment does not come from scripture itself, but from other means.

And what do we mean when we talk of "validating scripture" anyway?
Validating to whom? Who is sitting in judgement upon scripture and for what purpose?

Colton, you say that you already get the Calvinist argument, but a presuppositional Calvinist (like Cornelius Van Til for ex.) would tell you that ALL human knowledge is ultimately circular and the only way to break out of the circle is, effectively, by faith. That is you have to have some presuppositions to start with.

The unbeliver has unbelieving presuppositions (like for example, that you have to prove that the Bible is true, because humans are the real ultimate judge of truth).

For the believer, it is that God is the ultimate author of truth and he has revealed truth definitively in the Bible.

If you peel back the layers, you have to get at how we know anything at all, that is epistemology.

I am a pipe smoker, the very embodiment of mellow.
I let nothing chap my ass.

serapion wrote:And what do we mean when we talk of "validating scripture" anyway? Validating to whom? Who is sitting in judgement upon scripture and for what purpose? If you peel back the layers, you have to get at how we know anything at all, that is epistemology.

This could get really interesting, and it may be getting too deep for the original intention of this thread, but...I've been in many philosophical discussions where the only arguments against Christianity become, "Well, how do you know? How can you be certain?" Etc. To answer your first question, I would say validating to "me." What I believe has to make a certain amount of sense. I have to have reasons for the choices I've made. I can base my theology on the authority of scripture or (as the Catholics do) on the Church, but I need to have reasons why I believe that source is authoritative and another source is not.

As to your second question, it's my belief that we don't have to know anything 100%. From a philosophical standpoint, I suppose there is no way to prove 100% that we're not all just brains in a vat experiencing things that aren't truly reality. Or, as Plato says, maybe we're all chained to a wall, and there's a light behind us, and real physical objects walk by, but all we see is their shadow on the wall, and those shadows are our sense of reality, though they aren't reality yada yada. For me, it comes down to this. I didn't sit down in this chair to write after first inspecting to make sure every screw was in place. My experience tells me that the chair will most likely not collapes, because it hasn't shown any signs of weakening and I've sat in it thousands of times. When it comes to God or the scriptures, maybe there isn't a way to be 100% certain that I've arrived at all Truth, but maybe that's not important. What seems important to me is to discover the most probably conclusion in all things. That's my view, anyway.

serapion wrote:And what do we mean when we talk of "validating scripture" anyway? Validating to whom? Who is sitting in judgement upon scripture and for what purpose? If you peel back the layers, you have to get at how we know anything at all, that is epistemology.

This could get really interesting, and it may be getting too deep for the original intention of this thread, but...I've been in many philosophical discussions where the only arguments against Christianity become, "Well, how do you know? How can you be certain?" Etc. To answer your first question, I would say validating to "me." What I believe has to make a certain amount of sense. I have to have reasons for the choices I've made. I can base my theology on the authority of scripture or (as the Catholics do) on the Church, but I need to have reasons why I believe that source is authoritative and another source is not.

As to your second question, it's my belief that we don't have to know anything 100%. From a philosophical standpoint, I suppose there is no way to prove 100% that we're not all just brains in a vat experiencing things that aren't truly reality. Or, as Plato says, maybe we're all chained to a wall, and there's a light behind us, and real physical objects walk by, but all we see is their shadow on the wall, and those shadows are our sense of reality, though they aren't reality yada yada. For me, it comes down to this. I didn't sit down in this chair to write after first inspecting to make sure every screw was in place. My experience tells me that the chair will most likely not collapes, because it hasn't shown any signs of weakening and I've sat in it thousands of times. When it comes to God or the scriptures, maybe there isn't a way to be 100% certain that I've arrived at all Truth, but maybe that's not important. What seems important to me is to discover the most probably conclusion in all things. That's my view, anyway.

Exactly.

"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Colton, interesting bit of logic there I'll have to ponder when fully rested.

Regardless, both Armenian and Calvinist viewpoints can be argued from Scripture. Trust me, I've fleshed out this issue often while reading the Bible. And essentially the order of events leading up to one's salvation is one of the areas in dispute.

I've hoped to come up with some sort of theory that woud somehow unite these viewpoints but to no avail. I've resolved a few issues but not all.

Instead - for now, I've been content to marvel in the mystery of God.

Not knowing all of the answers helps to keep the awe and wonder going.

matttaft wrote:From my understanding, the sola scriptura principle does not attempt to validate scripture using scripture. Rather, it attempts to validate theology using scripture.

I knew there was something that didn't strike me as logical about the thread question. I agree with matttaft as to what I understand the sola scriptura principle's purpose to be.

For the record. I don't believe in unconditional election, but I do believe that we should have scriptural backup for any theology that we assert as true. I don't see a contradiction here, but then again, I'm pretty short-sighted sometimes.

Here follows the relevant chapter from the Westminster Confession of Faith which is a more than representative of Reformed/Calvinistic thought on the subject. I have quoted all of it (save for the list of the books of the Bible, which I omitted for reasons of space) because there is a flow to the chapter.

The sections of particular interest regarding the validation of Scripture are IV and V. From what is there, I think that Colton has accurately described the Calvinistic view of the subject.

The sections regarding the sufficiency of Scripture are VI-X. I agree that these sections describe sola Scriptura. However, I think that sections VI-X are dependent objectively upon section IV and subjectively upon section V.

Of the Holy Scripture.

I. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;(a) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.(b) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;(c) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:(d) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;(e) those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.(f)

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

[There follows a list of the books of the Bible as found in most Protestant Bibles]

All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.(g)

(g) Luke 16:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 22:18, 19; II Tim. 3:16.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.(h)

(h) Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; II Pet. 1:21.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.(i)

(i) II Pet. 1:19, 21; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.(k) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(l)

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:(n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(o)

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(p) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(q)

(p) II Pet. 3:16.
(q) Psalm 119:105, 130.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.(y)

(y) II Pet. 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(z)

CaptainBlack wrote:Colton, interesting bit of logic there I'll have to ponder when fully rested.

Regardless, both Armenian and Calvinist viewpoints can be argued from Scripture. Trust me, I've fleshed out this issue often while reading the Bible. And essentially the order of events leading up to one's salvation is one of the areas in dispute.

I've hoped to come up with some sort of theory that woud somehow unite these viewpoints but to no avail. I've resolved a few issues but not all.

Instead - for now, I've been content to marvel in the mystery of God.

Not knowing all of the answers helps to keep the awe and wonder going.

From the perspective of my study of Christian history, I remember the position of sola scriptura was first expounded by Luther and his followers, while the position of unconditional election was defined by Calvin and his students.

As I was raised and educated a Baptist, there have been raging arguments among Southern Baptists for at least 100 years between those who lean to Armenius and those who lean towards Calvin. Both sides would hold to sola scriptura. So to say that sola scriptura=unconditional election would not be a position that could be supported by a study of the history of theology. Too many scholars much smarter than I have held some type of modified Armenian view, supported from Scripture.

"Alone with none but Thee, my God,
I journey on my way;
What need I fear when Thou art near,
Oh King of night and day?
More safe am I within Thy hand
Than if a host did round me stand."
--Attributed to Saint Columba.

+JMJ+
I am not going to add my two cents, but I believe that many people misunderstood colton's point. Let me try to clarify it.

colton wrote:If scripture is God's only infallible revelation ( sola scriptura ), then it cannot be validated except by itself, which is circular, so it cannot be validated at all. If we were to validate it by any other means (history, logical cohesion, etc.), we would be introducing a mechanism other than scripture, which is not from God, and thus not reliable.

So...

Scripture testifying to itself is circular logic so this is invalid.

Extra-Scriptural Authority (the Catholic model) is invalid according to Protestant theology.

Historical proof is out.

He continues...

colton wrote:So, the only way to be sure of scripture's validity is for the Holy Spirit to open one's eyes. Experience in life tells us that the Spirit does not do this for everyone, so the logical conclusion is unconditional election.

Barring the foregoing tests of veracity, the testifying authority must be the Holy Spirit enlightening each person. This inward conviction is life-giving faith.

Everyone who reads scripture is not convicted. This is an obvious fact observed in the world around us.

Therefore: Since the Holy Spirit only enlightens those whom He predestines, we must thereby accept Unconditional Election.

Colton, I hope that I have properly elucidated what you are trying to say here. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry I've taken awhile to reply; it's been a busy weekend so far. Wosbald's clarification is right on, so I'm just going to respond to the comments in order.

I had hoped to leave my personal beliefs out of this at least until the end in order to draw out more opinions and avoid abandoning the thread to a big argument, but I think for my questions and comments to make sense you probably need to understand that I don't believe in sola scriptura. However, I'm not a Catholic; I'm somewhere in the middle between the two. I cannot accept Calvinism for reasons impertinent to this discussion, but I do find their logic irrefutable if one accepts sola. That's why I want to know what non-Calvinistic, but sola-believing Christians make of the matter.

colton wrote:
it seems strange to validate the highest thing with something lower.

First, God is the highest thing, not scripture. Scripture is God's message to us; a means of coming to know the highest thing (God). Second, I don't understand your logic behind this statement.

If scripture is God revelation to us, which I presume we all believe, then one can't make a separation between the two. A man's words are who he is, and how much more must that be true for our unchangeable God? To be sure, there is more to God than scripture can contain. Still, God is God whether he reveals Himself through signs, visions, or scripture, and the edge of his cloak is just as much a part of Him as anything. That's why I think the example of God swearing by Himself is apropos. When the Holy Spirit shows someone that scripture is true, God is telling the person that His own words are true.

As far as my logic goes, I'm having a hard time making a concrete argument out of this, but it's just strange to prove the validity of something perfect by using something imperfect (i.e. scripture judged to be true by reason, because if sola is true, then reason can only be considered reliable insofar as it is confirmed by scripture, unlike Christians who don't believe in sola who hold that reason is valid insofar is it doesn't contradict scripture, which is a different thing altogether). Perhaps you'll permit me a very flawed analogy: If I tried to tell Stephen Hawking that his conclusions are wrong, he would have every right to tell me to buzz off because "his thoughts are higher than mine." So, if reason (or history or whatever) is invalid, as sola seems to indicate, then we can't use it to judge the truth of scripture and we arrive at unconditional election.

matttaft wrote:...it must be previously established that scripture is the authority for theology, and this establishment does not come from scripture itself, but from other means.

If scripture is the only (and do keep in mind that no one argues that scripture is not an authority, just that there are others), then what means are left given the reasoning above? If scripture is the authority on theology, then what is the authority on scripture, and why can't we use that in theology?

Also with regard to your later reply to Serapion, you say that you're not 100% sure, but you're sure enough to believe. I can go with that, but how do you overlook the seemingly airtight logic of Calvinism when you start from the same principle. Where do you think they've gone wrong?

serapion wrote:And what do we mean when we talk of "validating scripture" anyway?
Validating to whom? Who is sitting in judgement upon scripture and for what purpose?

We're validating it to ourselves. We don't pop out of the womb with an intrinsic knowledge that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, so we have to question its validity at some point.

serapion wrote:Colton, you say that you already get the Calvinist argument, but a presuppositional Calvinist (like Cornelius Van Til for ex.) would tell you that ALL human knowledge is ultimately circular and the only way to break out of the circle is, effectively, by faith. That is you have to have some presuppositions to start with.

The unbeliever has unbelieving presuppositions (like for example, that you have to prove that the Bible is true, because humans are the real ultimate judge of truth).

For the believer, it is that God is the ultimate author of truth and he has revealed truth definitively in the Bible.

If you peel back the layers, you have to get at how we know anything at all, that is epistemology.

Oh yes, I've spent plenty of time reading about epistemology; it's heady stuff to be sure. What you've written is exactly what I'm getting at. I don't agree with it, but from it's own point of view, it seems airtight. My question was directed to other Protestants who don't hold such a view. They start with the same sola that you do, but they arrive at a different answer, and I'm curious as to how they do that.

CaptainBlack wrote:Regardless, both Armenian and Calvinist viewpoints can be argued from Scripture. Trust me, I've fleshed out this issue often while reading the Bible. And essentially the order of events leading up to one's salvation is one of the areas in dispute.

This particular discussion isn't really about which view can be argued from scripture. It's about how one can know the Bible is true if he or she accepts sola.

Danksalot wrote:For the record. I don't believe in unconditional election, but I do believe that we should have scriptural backup for any theology that we assert as true. I don't see a contradiction here, but then again, I'm pretty short-sighted sometimes.

Where do you think the Calvinistic argument (outlined in my first post and then in greater detail by TweednBriar) goes wrong?

USA_traveller wrote:So to say that sola scriptura =unconditional election would not be a position that could be supported by a study of the history of theology. Too many scholars much smarter than I have held some type of modified Armenian view, supported from Scripture.

Where does the logic go wrong then? I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I want to know how people who believe sola can deny unconditional election. Also, like I wrote to CaptainBlack, this discussion isn't about what can and can't be argued from scripture; it's about how we know scripture is true if, as sola says, scripture is the only valid source in theology.

colton wrote: it's about how we know scripture is true if, as sola says, scripture is the only valid source in theology.

We can't.

Please explain.

If Scripture is the only true source of theology, then any human aspect brought into the equation taints the theology. If such is true, this means that, despite the urging of the Holy Spirit, there is still a fleshly side to any type of human logic. So, if Scripture is the only true source of theology, human interpretations are wrong, because we are bringing a human eye to God's word. Thus, Scripture is literally and completely true, and we humans cannot understand or expand on the points that are mad in Scripture, therefore we have no way to ever prove if it is true or not, except through faith. I personally don't ascribe to this line of thought, but this is why I say if Scripture is the only source of theology we cannot know for sure if Scripture is true.

colton wrote: it's about how we know scripture is true if, as sola says, scripture is the only valid source in theology.

We can't.

That's a little harsh! It is true, but in a trivial sort of way.

Because, if you study the early history of the the Christian Church (Pentecost to 400 AD), you can validate the reliability of Sacred Scripture... of course, this means that you are using some information outside of Scripture. You have to rely on the councils of Catholic bishops that selected the Holy Books.

Most of my reasonable Sola friends are comfortable with this inconsistency. "Well... yeah, we have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the selection of the books in Sacred Scripture. And now we rely on these books as the sole revelation from God. What's the problem?"

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

colton wrote: it's about how we know scripture is true if, as sola says, scripture is the only valid source in theology.

We can't.

Please explain.

If Scripture is the only true source of theology, then any human aspect brought into the equation taints the theology. If such is true, this means that, despite the urging of the Holy Spirit, there is still a fleshly side to any type of human logic. So, if Scripture is the only true source of theology, human interpretations are wrong, because we are bringing a human eye to God's word. Thus, Scripture is literally and completely true, and we humans cannot understand or expand on the points that are mad in Scripture, therefore we have no way to ever prove if it is true or not, except through faith. I personally don't ascribe to this line of thought, but this is why I say if Scripture is the only source of theology we cannot know for sure if Scripture is true.

Alright, thanks for playing "Name the Point of This Thread." Now, Sonic, please tell us what you think about sola scriptura.

colton wrote: it's about how we know scripture is true if, as sola says, scripture is the only valid source in theology.

We can't.

Please explain.

If Scripture is the only true source of theology, then any human aspect brought into the equation taints the theology. If such is true, this means that, despite the urging of the Holy Spirit, there is still a fleshly side to any type of human logic. So, if Scripture is the only true source of theology, human interpretations are wrong, because we are bringing a human eye to God's word. Thus, Scripture is literally and completely true, and we humans cannot understand or expand on the points that are mad in Scripture, therefore we have no way to ever prove if it is true or not, except through faith. I personally don't ascribe to this line of thought, but this is why I say if Scripture is the only source of theology we cannot know for sure if Scripture is true.

Alright, thanks for playing "Name the Point of This Thread." Now, Sonic, please tell us what you think about sola scriptura.

It's somewhat foolish. God gave us a reasoning and logical mind and the Holy Spirit to guide us. To say that God cannot guide someone in the understanding of Scripture through history, other documents written at around the same time (i.e. Egyptian hieroglyphics during the time of the Exodus), and even science, since God did create everything.

I don't really like any idea that attempts to put God in a box, or, in other words, tries to say that God cannot do something. For instance, Why couldn't God use other sources and allow us to fully comprehend these sources to, if nothing else for our own ease of mind, prove the Scripture true? God is a forgiving God and knows we are imperfect creatures, prone to doubt and unbelief. He is also a loving God that desires a relationship with we who desire a relationship with Him. Why wouldn't He help us to feel more comfortable in our trust in Him?

Maybe I'm being too critical, but more proof that God did what He said He did, only helps His cause and desire. Does it not speak even higher of God if, even those who didn't believe in Him, recorded what He did for His people? I find it irresponsible of us Christians to deny this.